Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atheism is incompatible with science


Only_
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Don't you say the pre conditions are self imposed though? 

More accidents of fate, I think. To have awareness that the possibility exists though, may lead more into it, than otherwise might, if not, then the "ministry" of disciples would be a waste of time. But the subject must be ready, more or less. Few are anywhere near ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I think a real stretch to imagine otherwise, but of course the mystical arm of these religions is a rather small part of the ongoing "show". Organized religion is the attempted external rationalization of that which is not externally, or rationally accessible. A kind of substitute for the "real" thing. The problem here, is that people are that sold on the idea that if rational thinking can't do it, nothing can, they offer instant dismissal of the idea.

All well and good habitat. Though you offer nothing that would support this view.

Where might I find anything to make this plausible, let alone likely? Could we see a pattern indicating this if we compared the Iliad to later works? Or in the differences in other religious texts that hint at a certain evolution? Is there anything common to every or even most cultures that would make it obvious? What support does that idea have from the fields of psychology, or cultural anthropology? Does linguistic anthropology indicate the possibility?

It seems to me from what little is available that more archaic cultures were far closer to the "otherworld" and more likely to directly experience it. The more modern cultures have less of this ability and thus rely more heavily on a spiritual "caste" to convey such things. In particular our modern western culture. This would make mysticism another attempt to commune with something lost, commensurate with religion rather than underlying it. This is indicated in various sects themselves who have different levels of worship ie. the mundane teachings and an inner circle of more "mystical" practices.

It isn't about being rational. I'm as aware of anyone else that inner experience can be beyond words.

You seem to overlook the possibility that "mysticism" can also amount to confusing the fantasies of the mind and imagination, with reality. This is a great possibility simply because of human psychology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

These people who seem to consider themselves wise have an awful lot of trouble explaining why they think that. 

I'm not seeing how it's different to the old religious idea of don't question it, just believe. 

Getting dizzy from the circles they are running in. 

Well, I'm only being faithful to the reality, that there is not a lot that can clarify what has been described as the experience that is "altogether other", there is no analogy in our common modes of perception. A kind of "second sight", might be the closest. We all know a man blind from birth, can't comprehend having sight. The only way to understand it, apparently, is to experience it, and that can only happen if you "tune out" of all else. You can't have AM and FM playing on the radio at the same time. When people do try and tune out, as an act of will, they can become aware that they are perhaps not as in-control of their "receiver", as they imagined. The pull of "the world", is usually too much. And the least likely subject, is a sensation seeker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 it is indeed.

However, there are other competing positives. 

Eg one might sacrifice their life for others.  That is logical give a certain set of values At any time in my teaching career i would have sacrificed my life to protect those in my care This was a logical, value based, decision which  I had made while still young   

More to the point, I went to pains to point out how advantaged and privileged my life already is.

  if i can share a little bit of that privilege, and advantage, with others,  then this is right to do 

My wife and i have saved  the lives of thousands of children, educated many, and saved the lives of hundreds of adults.  We have also rescued, saved and improved, the lives of hundreds of animals 

I suspect that, in part, this altruism will extend our lives due to our happiness, and lack of anxiety, or fear, or care.

BUT even if it costs us a few years of our lives, which might have been bought through the million dollars we have given away, the trade of in benefits for others is huge  and acceptable 

While it is important to live a long and healthy life, it is only so, to enable you to do more for others, NOT just to enjoy it for yourself. 

What makes you think a person's life cannot be richer without religion then? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

At least "we"  do THINK, and do apply logic, plus positive values, ethics, and moralities in our lives.

Really, because from where I'm sitting it looks more like your team THINKS they apply logic, but do not. 

15 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

My aim, at which  i have been relatively successful, is to improve the world, by improving   the lives of everyone I can,  and who will accept  help.  

That's not much good in a discussion forum for anything other than bragging though. And that's considering one accepts your word on the matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Horta said:

What support does that idea have from the fields of psychology

Jung was very well versed in these matters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Habitat said:

More accidents of fate, I think. To have awareness that the possibility exists though, may lead more into it, than otherwise might, if not, then the "ministry" of disciples would be a waste of time. But the subject must be ready, more or less. Few are anywhere near ready.

That sounds more like self delusion than any other description you have offered. What rules that out? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That sounds more like self delusion than any other description you have offered. What rules that out? 

Though I am a little reluctant to characterize this business as such, it does appear to be a matter of the true aristocracy, being the few who can carry this through. Just what proportion of the population that would be, who knows, though someone ventured that "many are called, but few are chosen". Quite a few have awareness, they may be apt subjects, but circumstances are such that not a lot get there. And many that try and push it, may well crash and burn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

And he did not kill his mother. 

 

 

Hi Will 

That is true but then how many other mothers did he kill the ratio is 1 in ?

jmccr8

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Well, I'm only being faithful to the reality, that there is not a lot that can clarify what has been described as the experience that is "altogether other", there is no analogy in our common modes of perception. A kind of "second sight", might be the closest.

You're not being faithful to reality though, by your own admission the path to mysticism is irrational and cannot be transferred, so how can that be considered as faithful to reality? 

Your faithful to your belief aren't you? 

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

We all know a man blind from birth, can't comprehend having sight. The only way to understand it, apparently, is to experience it, and that can only happen if you "tune out" of all else. You can't have AM and FM playing on the radio at the same time. When people do try and tune out, as an act of will, they can become aware that they are perhaps not as in-control of their "receiver", as they imagined. The pull of "the world", is usually too much. And the least likely subject, is a sensation seeker.

One can turn on 2 radios at once and gain information from both sources. 

And a man blind from birth can still communicate and experience the world. 

There is always a way, except for with mystic or religious beliefs which as you state are nit transferable. 

How can you be sure the mystics were just not Walkers and Will's playing to an ignorant receptive crowd? People love being told things they want to hear, like they will have another life, or some supreme justice is personally watching over them. It would be easy to prey on such hapless victims. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Jung was very well versed in these matters.

 

Great. That's a start at least. You seem to be well versed in his works?

Can you point me to the paper where he explains why psychic phenomena that he believed in, was real. Psychology must have missed that one too (apart from Rupert Sheldrake perhaps).

Or where he gives his hypothesis that "mystics" constitute the genesis of the entire worlds religions. 

This might be interesting. He might convince me, or he might be even quackier than I thought.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Though I am a little reluctant to characterize this business as such, it does appear to be a matter of the true aristocracy, being the few who can carry this through.

Statistics would explain it just as well wouldn't it? Once in a while, a kook gets lucky and praised for ramblings instead of being committed. 

That doesn't seem as unlikely as a God existing. 

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Just what proportion of the population that would be, who knows, though someone ventured that "many are called, but few are chosen". Quite a few have awareness, they may be apt subjects, but circumstances are such that not a lot get there. And many that try and push it, may well crash and burn.

How is that not just delivery of the claim? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, danydandan said:

How do you know?

Hi Dany

He doesn't know hence the disclaimer at the start of his post and just wanted to insert an opinion.:D

jmccr8

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

One can turn on 2 radios at once and gain information from both sources. 

You are only one receiver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Hitler didn't kill his mother and he wasn't jewish. As for him being jewish that was a rumour that have no proof. The one about his mother is just weird. :blink:

Hi Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Duly noted but this is where the weird and unexplained is expressed, although the abstract seems to have more mystery involved.

jmccr8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Horta said:

Great. That's a start at least. You seem to be well versed in his works?

Can you point me to the paper where he explains why psychic phenomena that he believed in, was real. Psychology must have missed that one too (apart from Rupert Sheldrake perhaps).

Or where he gives his hypothesis that "mystics" constitute the genesis of the entire worlds religions. 

This might be interesting. He might convince me, or he might be even quackier than I thought.

He writes extensively on the matter of integration of the psyche, and how inevitably the religious has to be be included in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habitat said:

You are only one receiver.

Any radio will allow multiple frequencies. That a handful out of billions find that channel is not convincing its what they say it is. 

Its not only them, one has to abandon logic and common sense to seek that channel. As you say, it's irrational. That doesn't strike me as a valid approach. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Its not only them, one has to abandon logic and common sense to seek that channel. As you say, it's irrational. That doesn't strike me as a valid approach. 

There's the whole thing, right there. And most will agree with you. I think it takes a particular kind of person, perhaps they are the true aristocracy, that has the intuition that this is the avenue to the true source, having realised that all else has failed. A kind of faith that if one has the inkling it is there, one must also have that capacity, overlain as it is by the distractions of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

He writes extensively on the matter of integration of the psyche, and how inevitably the religious has to be be included in that.

That seems a bit irrelevant to your claim though.

Perhaps you could distill the part where he explains that "mystics" gave rise to the entirety of the worlds religions, in your own words. With links to the relevant literature if I wish to look further. It might be interesting to see how the branches of history, linguistics, cultural anthropology and so on that he cites as supporting him. I feel sure this must be so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Habitat said:

My recall of these stories, which I felt were being hyped for dramatic effect, was amphetamines was the main drug involved, which certainly would not be a trivial matter in affecting his mental state, but if he was getting that regularly, I don't see how he'd be doing a lot of sleeping. I would say the course of events was well set in train before drugs became a big part of the equation.

Hi Habitat

A person can only run so long on synthetic adrenalin then their body crashes and several days of recuperation would be needed mostly sleep until they can eat and regain some physical(notice that I am not including psychological or emotional states)so then the Fuehrer is either busy with important meetings or has the flu.

jmccr8

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Horta said:

That seems a bit irrelevant to your claim though.

Perhaps you could distill the part where he explains that "mystics" gave rise to the entirety of the worlds religions, in your own words. With links to the relevant literature if I wish to look further. It might be interesting to see how the branches of history, linguistics, cultural anthropology and so on that he cites as supporting him. I feel sure this must be so.

I don't recall attributing that specific claim to Jung, but if you look into his writings, you will find much along the lines mentioned. And the idea of the "entirety" of religions is yours, not mine, but the major extant religions, yes. You can worry about the likes of Scientology etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

I don't recall attributing that specific claim to Jung, but if you look into his writings, you will find much along the lines mentioned. And the idea of the "entirety" of religions is yours, not mine, but the major extant religions, yes. You can worry about the likes of Scientology etc.

Slipperier than an eel lol.

You claim that religion has "mysticism" as it's genesis. You gave the name "Jung" as having support for this claim.

Instead of backing that up, you are now selling used cars.

Good work. You really do have potential as a mystic! lol. 

So I can take it that this doesn't really support your "mystical" claims, re religion?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ps. It might be worth it just to see if he can define mysticism. Surely, there is at least this much, if he's claiming religion owes it's genesis to it.

pps. So it's only some religions now lol. The ones of your choosing? Starting to whittle things away there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Horta said:

Slipperier than an eel lol.

You claim that religion has "mysticism" as it's genesis. You gave the name "Jung" as having support for this claim.

Instead of backing that up, you are now selling used cars.

Good work. You really do have potential as a mystic! lol. 

So I can take it that this doesn't really support your "mystical" claims, re religion?

I don't endorse any religion, but I can see where they started. Mysticism, and a transformative experience for a single person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ppps. what have you got against the great mystic an seer that founded scientology? He used the same methods you are, a lack of rational logic? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.